what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

Parcells is desparate, Gibbs isn't (just the fans).

Romo did come out of the game with the same score as Mark finished with, and manage to throw as many Ints as Brunell has thrown all year in just one game

what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

Parcells is desparate, Gibbs isn't (just the fans).

Romo did come out of the game with the same score as Mark finished with, and manage to throw as many Ints as Brunell has thrown all year in just one game

Romo was put into the game with his team down by multiple scores. he threw multiple INTs because he was actually attempting to win the game, which mark brunell literally did not do in the 2nd half yesterday. we were down by 3 TDs to a team with the best offense in football, and he made no legitimate effort to move the ball downfield.

brunell's only score of the 2nd half came when the game was completely over. romo at least gave his team a chance to win.

finally, 2-5 is a hundred times more desperate a situation than 3-2, but parcells still had the balls to make the switch. if gibbs isn't desperate, it means that he's clueless.

this is just getting out of hand. what is the possible state of mind that would compel a person at this point to utterly disregard all the factual information about Joe Gibbs 2, and STILL defer to events that transpired 15-20 years ago and have absolutely no bearing on the current situation???

when he came back, gibbs himself insisted on being judged by how he does now, and not what he did then. so anyone who claims any devotion to gibbs at this point is nothing but a hypocrite. if you have faith in him, you must do as he says and forget about the past. when you assess his current performance (specifically the continued devotion to brunell), it is so unconscionably horiffic and shockingly out of touch with reality, that a reasonable person can only conclude that any other coach doing this would have been fired already. gibbs should not be absolved just because he is gibbs- he has said so himself!

if anyone disagrees with this, i would like to hear one remotely plausible, non-laughable defense of the decision to stick with mark brunell at this point. the only possible one is that campbell is so utterly, unimaginably bad that they don't even want to embarass themselves by putting him on the field. i find this hard to believe, especially since they personally moved up to draft him.

so go ahead. conjure up some defense.
oh, and, "this team still has a shot at the playoffs" isn't even close.

what the hell is your point? bledsoe threw yet another INT in the red zone earlier in the game, like he always does, and he's a frickin' veteran! and it's pretty inconvenient not to mention that they wouldn't have gotten to the red zone for romo to throw those INTs, if it hadn't been for his scrambling ability. bledsoe would've been sacked 10 more times.

Parcells is desparate, Gibbs isn't (just the fans).

Romo did come out of the game with the same score as Mark finished with, and manage to throw as many Ints as Brunell has thrown all year in just one game

Romo was put into the game with his team down by multiple scores. he threw multiple INTs because he was actually attempting to win the game, which mark brunell literally did not do in the 2nd half yesterday. we were down by 3 TDs to a team with the best offense in football, and he made no legitimate effort to move the ball downfield.

brunell's only score of the 2nd half came when the game was completely over. romo at least gave his team a chance to win.

finally, 2-5 is a hundred times more desperate a situation than 3-2, but parcells still had the balls to make the switch. if gibbs isn't desperate, it means that he's clueless.

I completely agree with this man. If your someone who donesn't then your someone that doesn't know football.